Gujarat High Court

Swati Rajiv Goswami vs Commissioner Of Police, ... on 17 January, 2023

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

    C/SCA/11826/2020                                 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11826 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
       of the judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== SWATI RAJIV GOSWAMI Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD ========================================================== Appearance:

MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. ROHAN SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

Date : 17/01/2023

CAV JUDGMENT

1 The petitioner by way of this petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeks publication of

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

Rules framed by the respondents under Sec.33 of the

Gujarat Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Police Act"). The petitioner further seeks publication and

online access to all the Rules, Regulations, Instructions,

Manuals and Records held by the respondent No.1 or

under its control or used by its employees for discharging

its functions. It is the case of the petitioner that failure to

publish such rules amounts to illegality of the executive

action violation of democracy rule of law and natural

justice and infringement of rights of the petitioner of free

speech and expression and assembly enshrined in Article

19 of the Constitution and Right to Life enshrined in

Article 21 of the Constitution.

2 Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 On 12.12.2019, the Citizenship Amendment Act,

2019, was assented to by the President and published for

general information in the official gazette. Some of the

residents of Ahmedabad willing to express their opinion

on this amendment, wished to express the same in

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

peaceful manner. The petitioner, wanting to peacefully

assemble sought permission for assembly and peaceful

protest on 29.12.2019 between 5 p.m to 7 p.m on

foothpath of road adjacent to Kanoria Centre for Arts &

Gufa of Ahmedabad. The information was sought from the

Police Inspector, Gujarat University Police Station, vide

letter dated 25.12.2019. On 28.12.2019, vide "Samaj

Yadi" the petitioner was informed that the permission for

such assembly and peaceful protest is not allowed and is

rejected on the grounds of situation of law and order as

well as problem of traffic. The petitioner in violation of

the order did hold an assembly and was detained for a

few hours.

2.2 With a view to know the Rules under which the

permission of the petitioner was processed, the petitioner

addressed a letter to the respondent No.1, Commissioner

of Police, Ahmedabad, asking for the copy of the complete

rules framed under Sec.33 (1) (o) of the Police Act and

secondly if a request was rejected, whether it was so

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

done under any of the rules or regulations. On

06.03.2020, the petitioner received a reply that her

request for information sought is refused. The refusal of

information and the action of the respondent No.1 in

doing so is challenged on the ground of it being grossly

bad, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, Rule

of Law & Democracy.

3 Mr.B.S.Soparkar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit as under:

3.1 Section 33(1) of the Gujarat Police Act, according to

the learned counsel empowers the respondent

Commissioner under the area which is in their respective

charge to make, alter or rescind rules. Clause (o) of the

section empowers such officer to make rules regulating

the conduct of and behaviour or action of persons

constituting assemblies and processions on or along the

streets prescribing in the case of processions the rules by

which the order in which and the times at which the same

may pass. Such rules are framed subject to the provisions

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

of Sec.33(6) of the Police Act which provides that such

rule made be published in the official gazette and in the

locality affected thereby.

3.2 Reading sec.4(1)(b) of the Right to Information Act,

Mr.Soparkar, learned counsel, would submit that this

provision casts an obligation on the public authority to

proactively publish 17 kinds of information including the

procedure followed in the decision making process, the

norms set by it for discharge of its functions and the rules

and regulations under control or used by its employees

for discharging its functions. He would therefore submit

that not publishing and proactively disclosing the rules

and orders framed under Sec.33(1) of the Police Act are

in violation of Sec.33(6) of the Police Act as well as sec.4

of the Right to Information Act.

3.3 If the website and the RTI booklet is accessed, some

of the information is classified as "for department use

only". Even the screenshot of the website would indicate

that only for example the Acts under which the police

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

authorities are required to act, the names thereof are

displayed on the website without the actual document

being so made available. He would submit that the

necessity of publication of law is a part of the rules of

natural justice and the petitioner is entitled to know the

laws of the land.

3.4 The enforcement of the RTI Act has been repeatedly

emphasized as being one in which the peoples Right To

Information is a facet of Article 19(1)(a) of the

Constitution of India which guarantees freedom of

speech. He would rely on several decisions which declare

that transparency is the key for functioning of a healthy

democracy. In support of his submission, Shri Soparkar,

learned counsel, would rely on the following decisions.

(I) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raj Narain, reported

in AIR 1975 SC 865.

(ii) S.P.Gupta Vs. President of India & Ors, reported

in AIR 1982 SC 149.

(iii) Reliance Petro Chemicals Ltd vs. Proprietors of

Indian Express Newspaper Bombay Pvt Ltd & Ors.,

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

reported in AIR 1989 SC 190.

(iv) Union of India & Anr vs. Association of

Democratic Reforms, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2112.

3.5 By reading the very preamble of the Act, what is

evident is that the Right to Information Act was enacted

with the spirit that the democracy requires an informed

citizenry and transparency of information which are vital

to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to

hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable

to be governed. In support of his submission,

Mr.Soparkar, learned counsel, would rely on the decision

in the case of Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal N.

Mistry, reported in 2016 (3) SCC 525.

3.6 When information was sought for, it is denied on the

ground that in accordance with the Notification dated

25.10.2005, the Special Branch which decides the

procedure of assemblies and processions is exempted

from such disclosure in accordance with powers under

Sec.24 of the Right to Information Act. He would submit

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

that such exemption is not germane to the disclosure of

such information in view of the fact that the procedure

may be the application for permission that may be

processed by the authorities in tandem with the special

branch which itself does not prohibit publication of

information.

4 Mr.Rohan Shah, learned Assistant Government

Pleader, appearing for the State would raise preliminary

objections to the maintainability of the petition. He would

submit as under:

4.1 No fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has

been violated because of any action or inaction on the

part of the respondent. He would submit that the petition

filed seeking a direction to the respondent No.1 to comply

with the requirements under Sec. 4 of the Right to

Information Act ought to be dismissed on the grounds of

vagueness, ambiguity and absence of cause of action of

the petition. Permission sought for by the petitioner on

28.12.2019 for holding assembly and peaceful protest

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

was rejected which order is not challenged by the

petitioner. The application seeking rules framed under

Sec.33 was rejected on 06.03.2020. The prayer sought in

the petition for publication of rules and norms is

completely different from the main application and

therefore the petition be dismissed. Moreover, as

submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri

Rohan Shah, the petition also deserves to be dismissed as

it is one which pleads a relief in the nature of public

interest litigation. The other submission of the learned

Assistant Government Pleader is that the petition

deserves to be dismissed on the ground of alternative

remedy. He would submit that if the application dated

16.01.2020 which sought certain information is rejected,

there is a mechanism under the RTI Act that the decision

of the State Public Information Officer is appealable to his

senior under Sec.19(1) of the Act. A second appeal is also

available from a decision under the RTI Act before the

State Information Commission. In light of this

hierarchical procedure of appeal, the petitioner ought not

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

to directly approach the Court seeking a writ of

mandamus.

4.2 The petitioner has adopted a clever approach so as

not to strictly comply with the procedure under the RTI

Act. What is evident is that the permit section, the Special

Branch, Ahmedabad, intimated to the competent

authority under the RTI Act regarding the rejection of the

disclosure of information. The Public Information Officer

in turn informed the petitioner about the rejection of her

request. In order to cleverly avoid the procedure of

appeal, the petitioner without seeking alternative remedy

is seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.

4.3 Mr.Shah, learned AGP, would further submit that

the petitioner has not come with clean hands. She has

materially suppressed the fact that the permission to hold

an assembly on 29.12.2019 for 50 to 60 people was

denied and the petitioner conducted an assembly in the

peak hours disobeying the notification dated 24.12.2019

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

which led to disruption of traffic. On merits, Mr.Shah,

learned AGP, would submit that when the petitioner

sought permission vide her application dated 26.12.2019

to conduct and assemble to protest on 29.12.2019, the

respondent No.1 had issued a Notification on 24.12.2019

by exercising powers under Sec.144 of the Criminal

Procedure Code read with Sec.37 (3) of the Gujarat Police

Act, whereby it was prohibited for more than four persons

to assemble and it was in accordance with this

notification read with sec.37(3) of the Act that after

opinion was obtained from the respective police station,

the request was rejected. Therefore it is not a case where

permission has been rejected under rules framed under

Sec.33 of the Gujarat Police Act. The application made by

the petitioner seeking information i.e. a copy of the

complete rules is not granted in exercise of powers vested

in the authority and once it is evident from the affidavit-

in-reply that the Special Branch of the Commissioner of

Police is a Security & Intelligence Organization of the

State Government which is one of the exempted 11

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

organizations by virtue of the gazette notification dated

25.10.2005, such exemption to the Special Branch under

Sec.24(4) of the Right to Information Act entitles the

government not to give or part with information and the

petitioner therefore cannot seek direction for disclosing

the information which the authorities are not statutorily

bound to disclose.

5 In rejoinder, Mr.Soparkar, learned counsel, would

submit that essentially what the petitioner wants to know

is what the law of the land is in context of the rules which

permit a petitioner to peacefully demonstrate and the

petitioner is entitled to know such rules. That such rules

are framed under Sec.33 of the Act is evident in light of

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Himmat Lal K. Shah vs. Commissioner of Police,

reported in (1973) 1 SCC 227 which, declared Rule 7 of

the rules framed under Sec.33 as void. What is also

evident from the decision in the case of Gujarat

Majdoor Panchayat vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.,

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

reported in 1988 (2) GLR 1005, that there are

regulations for conduct of assembly and processions

which were framed by the Police Commissionerate of

Ahmedabad in the year 1975.

5.1 Mr.Soparkar, learned counsel, would therefore

submit that rules are framed under Sec.33. The authority

respondent No.1 is admittedly a public authority under

Sec.2(h) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner is

entitled to know such rules. There is violation of natural

justice in view of the fact that the petitioner is entitled to

know all the rules and regulations and as is held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of

Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay

reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497, that the information can

be divided into three categories, one which promotes

transparency and accountability in the working of every

public authority and in regard to the information falling

under such category, there is a special responsibility on

the public authorities to publish and disseminate such

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

information. Even in light of the decision in the case of

State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And

Ors., reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220, the petitioner is

entitled to a writ of mandamus in light of the refusal to

provide such information.

6 Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsels for the respective parties, what is

evident is that the power to regulate the conduct and

behaviour or action of the persons constituting

assemblies and processions along the streets and

prescribing the rules and the order in which it can pass

and at the time when it can so pass, is a conduct which

can be regulated by rules which can be framed under the

provisions of Sec.33(1) (o) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.

Sec.33(1)(o) reads as under:

"(o) regulating the conduct of and behavior or action of persons constituting asemblies and processions on or along the streets and prescribing in the case of processions, the routes by which the order in which and the times at which the same may pass."

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

6.1 Further, such rules or orders framed are subject to

the provisions of sec.33(6) of the Police Act. 33(6) of the

Act, reads as under:

"(6) The power of making altering or rescinding rules under this section shall be subject to the condition of the rules being made, altered or rescinded after previous publication, and every rule made or alteration or rescission of a rule made under this section shall be published in the Official Gazette and in the locality affected thereby by affixing copies thereof in conspicuous places near to the building, structure, work or place, as the case may be, to which the same specially relates or by proclaiming the same by the beating of drum or by advertising the same in such local newspapers in English or in the local language, as the authority making altering or rescinding the rule may deem fit or by any two or more of these mean or by any other means it may think suitable.

Provided that any such rules may be made, altered or rescinded without previous publication if the Commissioner, the District Magistrate, or as the case may be, the District Superintendent, as the case may be, is satisfied that circumstances exist which renders it necessary that such rules or alterations therein or rescission thereof should be brought into force at once."

6.2 Reading of these two provisions indicate that not

only is the police authority empowered to regulate such

conduct of people assembling and taking out processions

in accordance with the rules framed under Sec.33 of the

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

Act, but sub-section 6 of Sec.33 mandates publication of

such rules or orders. These provisions have to be seen in

light of certain provisions of the Right to Information Act,

2005. Reading the preamble of the Right to Information

Act, indicates that the Constitution of India has

established a democratic republic. Democracy requires

an informed citizenry and transparency of information

which are vital to its functioning and also to contain

corruption and to hold governments and their

instrumentalities accountable to the governed. There has

to be a harmonization of conflicting interest while

preserving the paramouncy of the democaratic ideal, in

asmuch as, when revelation of information in actual

practice is likely to conflict with other public interest

including efficient operations of the government optimum

use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of

confidentiality of sensitive information certain

information sought for by the citizen who desire to have it

must be provided. In this context, it would be relevant to

consider the definition of the term "information" as

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

defined in sec.2(f) of the Act. Sec.2(f) of the Act, reads as

under:

"2(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;"

6.3 Accordingly, information means any material in any

form, including records, documents, opinions, advises

etc., which can be accessed by a public authority. It is not

disputed that the respondent No.1 is a public authority.

Sec.4 of the Act provides for obligation of pubic

authorities. Sec.4 of the Act reads as under:

"4. Obligations of public authorities.--

(1) Every public authority shall--

(a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

(b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,--

(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;

(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;

(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;

(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;

(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;

(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;

(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;

(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;

(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;

(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;

(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;

(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;

(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;

(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;

(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;

(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed, and thereafter update these publications every year;

(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected persons.

(2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.

(3) For the purpose of sub-section (1), every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public.

(4) All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. Explanation.-- For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), "disseminated" means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority."

6.4 Reading of the section indicates that it provides that

17 kinds of information, including the procedure followed

in the decision making process, the norms set by it for

discharge of its functions and the rules and regulations

held by it or under its control in discharging its functions

are required to be provided by the authorities. Reading

sub-section 2 indicates that it shall be a constant

endeavour of every public authority to take steps in

accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-

section 1 to provide as much information suo moto to the

public at regular intervals through various means of

communications so that the public have minimum resort

to the use of this Act to obtain information.

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

7 It is in light of this provision of the Right to

Information Act that the decision of the respondent No.1

in rejecting the request needs to be considered. What is

evident from the annexures of the screenshot annexed to

the petition is that the website of the respondent No.1

only shows a list containing the number of rules, acts,

regulations and manuals but the copy of the same is not

available online. The booklet also classifies certain

information as being "departmental use only". This when

read in context of sec.33(6) of the Act would be contrary

to the mandate as provided under the Section which

mandates publication of the rules. The respondent cannot

refuse to produce such rules or orders inasmuch as, what

is evident from the mandate of the Act read in context of

the objectives of the Act is to promote free flow of

information. What is rightly submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner while quoting Lon L Fuller that

"there can be no greater legal monstrosity than a secret

statute". What is also pointed out as pleaded in the

petition is a quotation of James Madison who stated "A

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

popular government, without popular information, or the

means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a

tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern

the ignorance and a people who mean to be their own

Governors must arm themselves with the power which

knowledge gives". It is therefore incumbent that the rules

and orders framed under Sec.33 of the Police Act which

are held or under the control of the employees for

discharging its functions must be published on the

website and made available and accessible to the public.

7.1 As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

decision of Raj Narain (supra), relevant para of the

decision reads as under:

" In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything, that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. The right to know, which ids derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have on repercussion on public security.

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

To cover with veil secrecy the common routine business, is not in the interest of public...."

7.2 In the case of S.P.Gupta (supra), the relevant para

reads as under:

".... The concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, disclosure of information in regard to the functioning of Government must be rule and secrecy an exception justified only where the strictest requirement of pubic interest so demands. The approach of the Court must be to attenuate the area of secrecy as much as possible consistently with the requirement of public interest, bearing in mind all the time that disclosure also serves an important aspect of public interest...."

7.3 In the case of Reliance Petrochemicals (supra)

the observation of the Supreme Court reads as under:

".... We must remember that the people at large have a right to know in order to be able to take part in a participatory development in the industrial life and democracy. Right to know is a basic right which citizens of a free country aspire in the broader horizon of the right to live in this age in our land under Article 21 of our Constitution. That right has reached new dimensions and urgency. That right puts greater responsibility upon those who take upon the responsibility to inform..."

7.4 In the case of Union of India & Anr (supra), the

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

" The right to get information in democracy is recognized all throughout and it is natural right flowing from the concept of democracy..."

8 At the cost of reiteration, the very preamble of the

Act captures the importance of the democratic right of an

informed citizenry to the transparency in the functioning

of the government. As held in the case of Jayantilal

Mistri (supra), what is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court is quoted as under:

"Because an informed citizen has the capacity to reasoned action and also to evaluate the actions of the legislature and executives, which is very important in a participative democracy and this will serve the nation's interest better which as stated above also includes its economic interests. Recognizing the significance of this tool it has not only been made one of the fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution also a Central Act has been brought into effect on 12th October 2005 as the Right to Information Act, 2005..." The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."

9 In accordance with mandate under Sec.4 of the Act

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

therefore and in light of the fundamental rights

guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 19 and 21 of

the Constitution of India, in the opinion of this Court, the

petitioner is entitled to the information so provided.

10 Coming to certain preliminary objections raised on

behalf of the respondent State which need to be

answered, essentially, it is the stand of the State

Government that the petition is not maintainable because

no fundamental right is violated, that rather than

challenging the rejection of the permission to hold a rally,

a petition is filed seeking rules under Sec.33 of the

Gujarat Police Act, 1951. That the petition is barred by an

alternative remedy inasmcuh as rather than invoking the

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the petitioner ought to have resorted to statutory

remedies provided under the relevant sections of the

Right to Information Act. No right accrues to the

petitioner to get the rules so framed. On the main

objections as to the rights of the parties, it is the case of

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

the respondents that the application for holding assembly

is not rejected under the rules framed under Sec.33 of the

Police Act but in accordance with the Notification dated

24.12.2019 issued in exercise of powers under Sec.144 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Sec.37 of the

Police Act. That, the petitioner is not entitled to any

information by virtue of the Notification dated

25.10.2005, by which the Special Branch is one of the

eleven organizations exempted from the purview of the

Right to Information Act.

10.1 The contentions of the State on the preliminary

grounds needs to be rejected. What the petitioner has

sought is to assail the action of the respondents of non

disclosure of Rules, Regulations and Instructions held by

the respondent No.1 or under its control or used by its

employees for discharging its functions. Reading sec.2(f)

with sec.3 and 4 of the Right to Information Act makes it

mandatory for the authorities to furnish information and

promote transparency. Had the petitioner been supplied

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

with the reasons and the rules under which she was

denied permission to protest in 2019, she would have had

access to the law of the land and to the decision making

process which could enable the petitioner to challenge

such information. The stand of the government is that

since the information is sensitive, inasmuch, as the

Special Branch which gave feed back is exempted from

the Information Act is no ground to deny such

information. What the authority seem to emphasize is that

since the end of the information appears to be because

the purpose of the protest was political, such information

need not be provided is in the opinion of this Court,

killing and smothering the very purpose of the Right to

Information Act, which, is evident from the preamble

thereof which is to promote transparency in democracy.

That there are no rules under Sec.33 of the Gujarat Police

Act and therefore no information can be so provided as

the rejection was under another provision seems to be a

misconceived proposition of the State.

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

10.2 Decisions cited by the learned counsel for the

petitioner in the case of Himmat Lal K Shah (supra)

and in the case of Gujarat Majdoor Panchayat (supra)

indicate that the respondent No.1 does have the power

and also does publish rules dealing with regulating the

conduct of processions and assemblies. If that be so is a

fact which is not denied, the petitioner is entitled to have

access to such Rules, Regulations, Instructions, Manuals

and Records in light of the provisions of Sec.4 of the

Right to Information Act. What is evident therefore that

the provisions of the Right to Information Act as set out

by the decision in the case of Aditya Bandhopadhyay

(supra), indicates that the provisions of the Act and the

scheme divides information into three categories. It will

be in the fitness of things to reproduce para 59 of the

decision in the case of Aditya Bandhopadhyay (supra),

which reads asunder:

"59. The effect of the provisions and scheme of the RTI Act is to divide `information' into the three categories. They are :

(i) Information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which may also help in

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

containing or discouraging corruption (enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act).

(ii) Other information held by public authority (that is all information other than those falling under clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act).

(iii) Information which is not held by or under the control of any public authority and which cannot be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force.

Information under the third category does not fall within the scope of RTI Act. Section 3 of RTI Act gives every citizen, the right to `information' held by or under the control of a public authority, which falls either under the first or second category. In regard to the information falling under the first category, there is also a special responsibility upon public authorities to suo moto publish and disseminate such information so that they will be easily and readily accessible to the public without any need to access them by having recourse to section 6 of RTI Act. There is no such obligation to publish and disseminate the other information which falls under the second category."

10.3 Therefore, what is evident on conjoint reading of

Sec. 4(1)(b), 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4) of the Right to

Information Act is that the petitioner is entitled and so

the respondent is under a legal duty to publish

informations specified in sec. 4(1)(b) of the Act and

evidently, the petitioner is entitled to know the rules

C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

framed under Sec.33 of the Gujarat Police Act, so as to

know the reasons by which the petitioner was denied

permission as in the absence of such knowledge, the

petitioner will be handicapped in challenging such

permission which will be a direct infringement of his